There’s been a major outbreak of economic populism among Israel’s Jewish voters over the rising cost of living. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was rapturously received on Capitol Hill in May, has seen his domestic polls drop. He has admitted "a populist wave is sweeping the country."
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
73 comments:
In terms of majority rights, Israel has a couple big advantages over other Western countries.
First, Israel was founded with the express idea of being a "Jewish State," so it's much easier to generate consensus on this issue.
Second, it's obvious to any Jewish Israeli that the Arabs want to destroy the country. As opposed to people like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who are much less hostile.
Of course, I am sure that some commenters will claim that the difference is that Israel has been exempted by the International Jewish Conspiracy, but consider that there are Leftist Jews in Israel (as well as in the US and Europe) who want to destroy Israel demographically just like there are Leftists who want to do the same with the US and Europe.
It would be much easier to discredit Leftists in the US if Mexican activists were launching daily rockets into San Diego.
Good article. However, Israel's tycoons are more likely to be the descendants of the country's oldschool centrist bourgeoisie than of kibbutzniks.
Wonder why the the American media is ignoring the Israeli version of Tahrir Square?
'You show me a 50ft wall, and I'll show you a 51ft ladder at the border.That's how it works'.
As a matter of fact 51ft ladders of the familiar rung and stile types do not exist.Basic physics you know, due to centers of gravity, turning moments and the considerable weight per foot of such a ladder, it would be impossible for even the strongest team of men to manhandle.
Yes, nested extension ladders of verious types do exist, and these incorporate some sort of rope/pulley system, together with hooks, to haul the extensions up - the fire brigade use them, and formerly the London Fire Brigade engines used to carry on their backs a huge wooden ladder of this type mounted to two huge wagon wheels - in believe they've gone aluminum these days.
Anyhow, such ladders are complex pieces of engineering, and expensive, requiring training and instruction to use properly, and then there's the problem of waht to do once you've scaled one side - you can't drag the ladder over with you.
Of course rope ladders don't have that problem, having virtually no theoretical limit to their length, but anchoring such a ladder securely at the top seems to be an insurmountable problem.
Another plan is to rig up some sort of temporary scaffolding platform - but that's a different issue entirely.
Well, I suppose the female politician who sprake those words, a doyenne of privelege has never had to contend with an extension ladder in her life.
Ha, ha. I suspect this particular posting will have a pretty remarkable ratio of published to unpublished comments...
Must say that I am mightily surprised at the apparent woes of the Israeli middle class.
One would have thought that Israel being the final destination of most of the world's wealth (just think of how much of the loot of Goldman Sachs, all the other beneficiaries of the great American housing scam, Marc Rich and his various activities, not to mention the Russian oligarchs and literally hundreds of others just as wealthy), would be literally rolling in cash and the streets literally paved with gold.
But apparently not.Apparently there's a housing crisis (which I find hard to believe knowing how adept jewish architects, planners and structural engineers are).
Perhaps the answer is, as you say, in the rapid growth of the isreali population and particularly the non productive Orthodox segment.Perhaps it's to do with the enormously costly 'defence' burden, but something still doesn't ring true.
As we all know 'wherewithal' or cold, hard cash is the solution to all economic problems, and no other similar acreage on earth is so awash with cash.
I am perplexed.
Just another reminder that the "to ourselves and our posterity" quoted here directly contradicts Steve Sailer's "citizenism," by definition. Our posterity are not (currently) citizens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122/ thought you would like these photos
I'd wager that in a few years the Israelis will be in a position to buy back much of the Sinai from very desperate Egyptians. Or they could reconquer it if Egyptian tensions find an outlet in war.
The Sinai is pretty empty and around four times the size of Israel. The Israelis could build a second Tel Aviv on the southern Mediterranean shoreline. They started doing so in the 1970s, when they still occupied Sinai. The city was called Yamit.
OT, but there's a fine discussion of black "flash mobs" by Walter Russell Mead of all people.
Speaking of Beck… Holy mackerel! You need to hear Beck’s radio program today. He called black flash mobs “not isolated.” He also described being in a movie theater watching the new Planet of the Apes movie and witnessing rude behavior and racism from blacks.
To modern media Americans, any sort of populism now seems vaguely anti-Semitic.
To "modern media Americans", anything which is not explicitly and fervently pro-Jewish is seen as anti-Jewish.
Does the majority of Israel's programming come from Hollywood? Russia's programming is Russian, and Scandinavian countries, who don't have a lot of Jews, have Hollywood programming. Notice how America's influence, between Hollywood and NYC, affects and sets liberal standards for many, many countries, whereas countries like Russia don't have the same issues.
@ Anon 4:49 -
I am reasonably sure that the politician who made the 51-foot ladder comment did not mean for it to be taken literally. The point is that people bent on entering a country are going to find ways to enter, no matter how stiff the obstacles.
Peter
Buying an apartment in Tel Aviv
You note in your article that the economy in Israel is booming. Of course being handed 3 billion dollars a year in money from American taxpayers doesn't hurt either does it, Mr. Sailer?
"Show me a 50 foot wall and I'll show you a 51 foot ladder"..
RIGHT..... and that's why there are no castles in Europe, no great sieges in military history, never any forts, fortresses, citadels or military defences.
Because we know, of course, that walls don't work.
consider that there are Leftist Jews in Israel (as well as in the US and Europe) who want to destroy Israel demographically just like there are Leftists who want to do the same with the US and Europe.<
So Sabril completely disagrees with Steve, who said that Leftists in Israel are on board with the "keep Israel Jewish" campaign. Steve is correct, of course.
As we all know 'wherewithal' or cold, hard cash is the solution to all economic problems, and no other similar acreage on earth is so awash with cash. I am perplexed.
It's as if you didn't even read Steve's article. The cash that is flowing to Israel from around the world is increasingly being hoarded by a few Israelis. Originally, the cash was distributed more equally among Israelis. That's why there are protests. Mubarak and his cronies had their direct counterparts in Israel. Not coincidentally, these two sets of cronies were allies.
airtommy:
sabril is talking about Israel's radical left, not the (increasingly neutered and ineffectual in recent years) mainstream Zionist left.
Israel has a good mechanism for filtering radical leftists out of positions of power - military service as an officer as a de-facto prerequisite for joining the elite.
"Show me a 50 foot wall and I'll show you a 51 foot ladder"..
Show me a bank with steel walls ten feet thick and I'll show you a way of cutting through it.
That's why banks don't even bother to try to protect their money any more. Oh wait ..
First, Israel was founded with the express idea of being a "Jewish State," so it's much easier to generate consensus on this issue.
As opposed to which other countries?
You illustrate the extent to which even conservative Jews are radical leftists in the context of countries other than Israel. Apparently the founding charters of America, Britain, Sweden, Germany etc all require them to be open to everyone in the world.
Here's another take on our "populist" uprising: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146497#.Tj-3XILzOSo
What's so "fine" about Mead's article on flash mobs? It's totally mealy-mouthed, leaving out any consideration of the essence of the problem, which is that young blacks feel completely immune. If the article had been honest, there would have been some reference to John McWhorter's observation, in his book Losing the Race, that "many of us seem to feel the rules don't apply to us."
I'll add that a link off Drudge reports that the 300,000 or so who protested yesterday did so over not just real estate but rising food and energy prices. This hit the Arab regimes, with very poor marginal people first, as they had little resources to import food and pay for it, or energy either. Israel was able to weather the storm in its initial phases but it is now hitting the middle class hard which has few resources to make it month-to-month.
We are seeing the same thing here. Flash mobs are borne out of the inability to pay for Ipods and designer sneakers and the food bill from a limited welfare check that is fixed. After all, the technology has been around (along with the phenomena) since at least 2003, using SMS and cell phones, and Drug Dealers used text messages on beepers as far back as the late 1980's. Black people in places like Philly or Chicago like or dislike Whites and other non-Blacks no more or less than they did before. But they suddenly got poorer and thus the low-risk way to achieve dominance, loot, and also "count coup" like Plains Indians by beating various people who are not Black.
It is the pressure of a globalized world with increased demand (mostly from China) for energy, food, and basic commodities, with a limited means to pay for it.
The only solution to THAT is economic nationalism and a relatively but not completely closed system, with big agricultural producers like the US, Russia, Australia, Argentina, Canada, to a lesser extent France having a decisive advantage (they can mostly feed their own people with their own resources). We were told agriculture did not matter, but now it does.
Sabril makes a good point above. The Israeli elite are aware that any type of multicultural immigration policy will break their country quickly. In America and other Western nations, it's been a long time since there was any massive demographic threat. The Siege of Vienna by the Ottoman Empire in 1683 was probably the last time that Western civilization was every really threatened. Living for centuries without any imminent threat has made us soft headed.
Take the fury that existed after 9/11. Now imagine that Muslims were doing a 9/11 about once a year and kept going for decades. Support for multiculturalism would fall off after a while, I think.
Another benefit for Israeli is that even the leftists are pretty patriotic and don't want to open up the immigration system. In every Western country, leftists seek to dilute the majority's culture through massive immigration, thinking of themselves as virtuous for doing it. Among Western leftists, those in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, etc. are more sensible on immigration than the truly insane American/Canadian/Aussie/Kiwi leftists.
It shows a fair amount of hypocricy for Jewish-Americans to support open immigration at home and closed borders for Israel, but they will pay the price at some point. Immigrant Muslims are anti-semitic and once their numbers hit critical mass, Jews can expect a good amount of harassment. We're already seeing some of that in EU.
A lot of Jews are anti-gentilistic and leftist enough that they seem the growing NAMization of America as a good thing, but they really need to think it through. A majority black/Hispanic America is not going to want to give aid to Israel. It'll also be more stringent in applying quotas and engaging in wealth distribution, which is not good for the Jews.
Sealing the border is easy. Napolitano and the rest of her subversive fellow travelers are against a border fence because they know a border fence would work. They don't want the border secure, so they kill the plan every time it comes up.
Really, does anybody think that liberal Democrats give a dam about saving money? The liberals are crazy about boondoggles, as their support of the "Stimulus" will show. They're against this thing because it'll work and then all these undocumented future Democrats will stop crossing into our country.
We're the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world, and we can't stop people from crossing a piece of land? Seriously, who believes this BS? If a 50 feet high fence doesn't work, make it 200 feet high. Then build several layers and throw on some sensors.
It can be done, but nobody powerful wants it done. The Democrats want their future constituency to cross over, both parties want the labor for their big money contributors, and the media-academic-elite establishment is in love with political correctness. So nothing happens.
The takeaway lesson is that our political "leaders" and media elites lie all the time about everything. Don't trust anything that comes out of their mouth.
I was reading rough google translations of some of the protest notices my facebook friends were posting..
Apparently something like 20 families control all of the wealth.. just like any other middle eastern despot country.
What's so "fine" about Mead's article on flash mobs?
It's the first time any mainstream member of the chattering classes has discussed the matter. That makes it "fine".
If the article had been honest, there would have been some reference to John McWhorter's observation, in his book Losing the Race, that "many of us seem to feel the rules don't apply to us."
You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run. It's churlish and counter-productive to complain that Mead does not sound (yet) like Sailer.
...if Mexican activists were launching daily rockets into San Diego.
Massive immigration from Mexico is a lot worse than that. And I would say that even if I still lived in San Diego. Which I don't.
Before you make assumptions about Israeli immigration policy you should know that the government of Israel had invited hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from places like Thailand and Philippines. About 180,000 of them remain in the country illegally. In proportion to the population, this would be equivalent to 7-8 million of illegals in the US.
Whiskey said . . .
in Israel having kids is seen as "not letting Hitler win" and a riposte to the Holocaust. By contrast having kids among Whites in the West is seen as a crime.
Some things get said in active voice and some things get said in passive voice.
Jolie famously said she loved her adopted kids more than her own biological kid. Then there is the preference for IVF women in NYC for Black kids, wanting that Affirmative Action benefit, and that of blue collar White women also wanting Black kids (who get ahead with AA -- a rational choice).
What a surprise: Whiskey is making fact-free assertions!
Before you make assumptions about Israeli immigration policy you should know that the government of Israel had invited hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from places like Thailand and Philippines. About 180,000 of them remain in the country illegally. In proportion to the population, this would be equivalent to 7-8 million of illegals in the US.
The difference is that non-Jews have no "path to citizenship" in Israel, and their children certainly do not get birthright citizenship.
"So Sabril completely disagrees with Steve, who said that Leftists in Israel are on board with the 'keep Israel Jewish' campaign. "
No, he said that the Labor Party was on board. Bona fide Leftists -- the sort of people who want to open the doors to the Third World -- don't have a lot of influence in Israel at the moment.
"Originally, the cash was distributed more equally among Israelis. That's why there are protests"
I would guess it has more to do with the fact that the economy is hot in Israel and the price of goods and services has risen a lot.
"As opposed to which other countries?"
As opposed to most other countries. For example the United States was not founded in order to be a homeland for any particular group of people. It simply seceded from the British Empire.
Or look at the history of Norway. It was not founded with the idea of setting up a homeland for Norwegian people. Instead, it more or less fell into their laps.
If somebody were to conquer Norway, evict all the Norwegians, and scatter them throughout the Earth; and a couple thousand years later they managed to retake their country with a lot of blood and tears, then probably it would be easier to build consensus for restrictive immigration laws there.
"You illustrate the extent to which even conservative Jews are radical leftists in the context of countries other than Israel."
Nonsense, I think all Western countries should restrict immigration.
"Apparently the founding charters of America, Britain, Sweden, Germany etc all require them to be open to everyone in the world."
I don't know about Britain, Sweden, or Germany, but the United States constitution is silent on this issue. Are you seriously claiming that the United States was founded with the idea that it would be a homeland for a particular group of people?
I don't know about Britain, Sweden, or Germany, but the United States constitution is silent on this issue. Are you seriously claiming that the United States was founded with the idea that it would be a homeland for a particular group of people?
No, I think it's pretty safe to say that Anonymous was being SARCASTIC.
If somebody were to conquer Norway, evict all the Norwegians, and scatter them throughout the Earth; and a couple thousand years later they managed to retake their country with a lot of blood and tears, then probably it would be easier to build consensus for restrictive immigration laws there.
What's your definition of consensus then? I don't know of one white country that's experiencing mass immigration where an overwhelming majority of the population doesn't already support immigration restriction. Unless by "consensus" you mean that a tiny minority of the population that "happens to be Jewish" must also agree with it.
I don't know about Britain, Sweden, or Germany, but the United States constitution is silent on this issue. Are you seriously claiming that the United States was founded with the idea that it would be a homeland for a particular group of people?
The Constitution gives the power of naturalization to the Congress. The First Congress, which included many signers of the Constitution, immediately proceeded to exercise that authority with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was signed into law by the greatest of the Founders, George Washington.
The fact that succeeding immigrant groups rewrote this act in 1965 does not change what the Founders wanted. I imagine if they'd forseen the treachery of Emanuel Celler and Philip Hart, they might have hard-coded the sentiments of the 1790 Act into the actual Constitution. But I can't criticize them too much. They made a great document and thought through a lot of things. But foreseeing that their progeny would be superceeded by other ethnic groups 180 years down the road unfortunately wasn't one of them.
The law blog Volokh Conspiracy had a couple of posts up about two months ago on how some leftist American Jews are finding it hard to reconcile modern liberal thought with supporting an avowed Jewish nation-state.
Enemies
Jews, Liberalism, and Nationalism
the United States was not founded in order to be a homeland for any particular group of people. It simply seceded from the British Empire.
Rather like Israel, which also waged a war of independence against that same British Empire?
Or look at the history of Norway. It was not founded with the idea of setting up a homeland for Norwegian people. Instead, it more or less fell into their laps.
You really are an idiot. "It's some bizarre coincidence that this country called Norway happened to be populated by Norwegian people who happened to speak Norwegian. It has nothing to do with Norwegians making a Norwegian homeland".
I repeat, even "conservative Jews" adapt a radically left-wing position with respect to countries other than Israel. "What's ours is ours alone and what's yours is to be shared with us".
Are you seriously claiming that the United States was founded with the idea that it would be a homeland for a particular group of people?
Yes, you clown, I am claiming that. Me, the Founders, and the Constitution. Read the Federalist papers. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution. Do all that before asking me any more ignorant questions.
The law blog Volokh Conspiracy had a couple of posts up about two months ago on how some leftist American Jews are finding it hard to reconcile modern liberal thought with supporting an avowed Jewish nation-state.
Having read that blog off and on over the years, it strikes me that reconciling modern "libertarian" thought with an avowed Jewish nation-state should be an ever more difficult proposition.
But if you try to point this to those "libertarians" they ban and delete you.
It's an odd thing that libertarian blogs place more restrictions on what their commenters may say than do any other political group.
Hit-n-Run is the only exception I can think of.
"In terms of majority rights, Israel has a couple big advantages over other Western countries.
First, Israel was founded with the express idea of being a "Jewish State," so it's much easier to generate consensus on this issue."
In that case, all Western nations must be re-founded as WESTERN nations.
"'You show me a 50ft wall, and I'll show you a 51ft ladder at the border.That's how it works'."
You see, there was never any need to build castles in the middle ages.
King: "We need to build a wall!"
Advisor: "But, you highness, the enemies will have ladders."
King: "Well.. okay, let them invade us."
The same Jews who claim in one breath that America was always an "anti-nation", a place where anyone could come and be an American just by saying so, claim in the other breath that it was Jews in the 1960's and after who converted all those racist bigoted white Americans to the cause of the universal brotherhood of man. As they like to remind us, at one time even Italians were not considered "white" in horribly racist America.
So which of these mutually contradictory stories do you want to stick with, sabril?
If somebody were to conquer Norway, evict all the Norwegians, and scatter them throughout the Earth; and a couple thousand years later they managed to retake their country with a lot of blood and tears, then probably it would be easier to build consensus for restrictive immigration laws there.
That's a very "poetic" version of Jewish history. Which is to say, it's basically a crock. The bulk of modern Israelis have as much in common with the Israelites of old as the modern Greeks do with the Athenians of the Golden Age. None at all.
Or to use a more contemporary example, they have as much in common with them as the "Americans" in modern New York and Los Angles have in common with the Americans of the Revolutionary era.
"I don't know of one white country that's experiencing mass immigration where an overwhelming majority of the population doesn't already support immigration restriction"
And the overwhelming majority of Americans think it's a good idea to eat healthy and stay fit. Yet most people eat poorly and get fat.
So too with immigration. People claim that they don't want it, then they hire Mexicans to mow their lawn. And vote for politicians with solid track records in favor of immigration.
"The fact that succeeding immigrant groups rewrote this act in 1965 does not change what the Founders wanted."
There's a difference between what you want and what is your main priority. The main priority of Israel's founders was to set up a Jewish homeland. The main priority of America's founders was NOT to set up a white homeland.
For example, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence about setting up a White Homeland.
"Rather like Israel, which also waged a war of independence against that same British Empire?"
Not at all. Here is the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel:
______________
ERETZ-ISRAEL the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.
. . .
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
. . .
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
ACCORDINGLY WE . . . HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
. . .
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles;
. . .
PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948).
_______________
"I am claiming that. Me, the Founders, and the Constitution. Read the Federalist papers. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution."
Please quote the part of America's founding papers which is equivalent to Israel's Declaration of Independence.
Nonsense, I think all Western countries should restrict immigration.
Sabril,
What about other measures? Do you support all Western countries taking other measures such as repatriation and the like?
Reading internet comments is like watching a squadron of clowns bounce around on a merry-go-round through the reflection of monkey mirrors. It's always hard to tell who's the bigger retard, the guy who fabricates his own reality out of thin air or the guy who gets incensed by that reality. Witness:
Bill said...
Whiskey said . . .
in Israel having kids is seen as "not letting Hitler win" and a riposte to the Holocaust. By contrast having kids among Whites in the West is seen as a crime.
Some things get said in active voice and some things get said in passive voice.
In actual matter of fact, Israel has 20,000 official documented abortions a year and likely far more. {Female soldiers alone are allotted two free abortions (should they require them) while in the service.}
I realize that inconvenient facts occasionally get in the way of shouting the simple narratives in your heads but could you do us the favor of not shouting them into print? Sometimes, just sometimes, actually knowing what your talking about (or even just having a sane viewpoint) is superior to talking your frustration out on your keyboard.
Must say that I am mightily surprised at the apparent woes of the Israeli middle class.
One would have thought that Israel being the final destination of most of the world's wealth (just think of how much of the loot of Goldman Sachs, all the other beneficiaries of the great American housing scam, Marc Rich and his various activities, not to mention the Russian oligarchs and literally hundreds of others just as wealthy), would be literally rolling in cash and the streets literally paved with gold.
Actually, it's not so surprising when you think about it a bit...
For example, the standard history books say that the massive amounts of gold and silver wealth brought back from the New World by the conquistadors created huge dislocations in the Spanish economy, and resulted in the decline of many productive sectors and the impoverishment of much of the population.
Can't say whether that made the Incas or Aztecs feel any better...
Please quote the part of America's founding papers which is equivalent to Israel's Declaration of Independence.
That would be the US Declaration of Independence. The one you still have not read, from what I can see. The one which begins with "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..."
Now it is your turn, Einstein. Please quote the part of the American founding papers which led you to mistakenly believe that the founders saw America as a home for all mankind, and as the negation of nationhood.
Before you make assumptions about Israeli immigration policy you should know that the government of Israel had invited hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from places like Thailand and Philippines. About 180,000 of them remain in the country illegally. In proportion to the population, this would be equivalent to 7-8 million of illegals in the US.
Let me quote from your own link.
Asaf Garty, a coordinator in the deportation enforcement unit of the Interior Ministry, paints a bleak picture of hearings for illegal workers (Ha’aretz, February 11th, 2004): “The detainees are frequently cursed, threatened and ridiculed.” Garty describes how he was present when “another enforcement coordinator asked an Immigration Police officer at Haifa port to extract a confession from a Moldavian detainee saying that he had slipped into Israel via the Egyptian border. The policeman took the detainee into a corner and beat him on the back of his neck with a plastic pipe, resulting in the man’s confession.”
Naana Holdbrook, a chemistry teacher from Ghana, came to Israel “in order to pay the bills” (Ha’aretz, April 5th, 2004). Former chair of the Organization of African Workers in Israel, Holdbrook thought Israel was a good place to come “because people here would understand us — people who themselves wandered from place to place in search of a better future for their children.” But after 16 years in the country, Holdbrook was deported last April and had harsh words for the Israeli expulsion policy: “To you it may not sound so bad if a few migrants don’t like you, but the fact is that a lot of people left here with some very bad feelings about Israel. A man whose leg was broken while the police were chasing after him and became a cripple will tell it to his children; a woman whose husband was in jail while she was giving birth will tell it to her child who was born here. Maybe in the future, Israel will find that it is no longer so popular among African countries.”
Thanks for that insightful glimpse into Israeli immigration policy, which looks a lot like what Jews in America would call "Gestapo tactics" if engaged in here. Reading on -
According to the foreign workers’ hotline, arrests of this kind are widespread. “Dozens of families applied to us with all sorts of reasons why they could not leave Israel exactly at the appointed time, and asked for extensions of a few weeks,” said Sigal Rose, director of the hotline. “They were all dismissed out of hand.” One particularly shocking case was an expulsion order handed to a Chinese restaurant owner living in Israel with his family for 30 years. At 7:00 one evening, Immigration Police entered the Sun Flower Restaurant in Rishon Le’Zion, owned and operated by Hu Yang Chen for 25 years, arrested him and hauled him off to Ma’asihu Prison.
A particularly painful problem is the status of hundreds of children of foreign workers who were born in Israel and study in Israeli schools. As the law stands today, if a child is born to illegal immigrants, he or she is automatically illegal. These children do not receive a birth certificate but only a document stating, “live newborn.” If a female foreign worker gives birth to the child of an Israeli father, the Interior Ministry will not recognize his fatherhood without expensive DNA testing.
For example, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence about setting up a White Homeland.
Why would a good portion of the Founders immediately craft the 1790 Naturalization Act which limited naturalization to 'Free White People of good character' if they had intended for the USA to become what it has now become?
It would be one thing if the language of the 1790 Act first appeared 50 to 100 years after the death of the Founders. Then you could make the case that the Founders did not support restrictions of American citizenship. But the fact that it was one of the first pieces of legislation, supported by many of those who wrote the Constitution and signed by Washington, convinces me that they did.
Even courts look back to the context of the times when determining the constitutionality of a law. So it seems pretty clear the 1790 Act reflected not just the view of Congress, but of the actual Founders themselves.
If anything the Immigration Acts of 1965, 1990, etc., are completely unrelated to the vision of the Founders, and probably caused most to turn in their graves.
"Do you support all Western countries taking other measures such as repatriation and the like?"
Not all, but I do think that European countries should gently encourage their Third World immigrants to leave.
""When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"
Sorry, but this says nothing about race or ethnicity. Indeed, the "one people" and the "other" being referred to were all white.
" Please quote the part of the American founding papers which led you to mistakenly believe that the founders saw America as a home for all mankind, and as the negation of nationhood."
Nice strawman. I'm not saying that the founders thought this way. I'm simply saying that setting up a homeland for a particular race or ethnicity was not their main purpose. Can you really not understand this distinction?
Here's an analogy: It's one thing to thing it would be a good idea to exercise, eat healthy, and stay in shape. It's another thing to make fitness your main priority in life.
Do you see the difference?
"Why would a good portion of the Founders immediately craft the 1790 Naturalization Act which limited naturalization to 'Free White People of good character' if they had intended for the USA to become what it has now become?"
It's not a matter of intentions or desires; it's a matter of priorities. The founders probably did intend or desire for the US to be primarily White. But it wasn't their central focus in setting up the country.
By contrast, the central purpose and priority in setting up Israel was to have a Jewish state. Which is part of the reason why it is possible to build a strong consensus in favor of restrictive immigration.
I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time grasping this distinction.
Sabril seems to think that the ancient nation states of Europe should produce legal documents from two or three thousand years ago proving that they were "set up" with the express aim of being homelands for the people with whom they share a name - otherwise the inferno of mass immigration and muticulturalism beckons. The fact that the organic emergence of our nation states makes them MORE and not less legitimate than the retrospectively legalized piece of theft that calls itself Israel is lost on him. Still, it's interesting to watch his argumentative legalistic mind at work attacking the self-evident purposes and rights of the European peoples' homelands because they lack pieces of paper codifying them.
"The fact that the organic emergence of our nation states makes them MORE and not less legitimate"
The degree of legitimacy of, say, Norway, is a different question. I'm simply explaining one of the reasons why it's so much easier to build a strong consensus in Israel to restrict immigration. Because the issue has always been a high priority from the very beginning of modern Israel.
My argument is descriptive not normative. i.e. I'm not making any judgment about whether Israel has a superior moral right to maintain immigration restriction compared to places like Norway.
Unfortunately, all too many people can't understand the difference between arguments about how things are and arguments about how things should be.
"attacking the self-evident purposes and rights of the European peoples' homelands because they lack pieces of paper codifying them."
What's interesting is that you have completely missed the point. Again, I'm not making an argument about whether it would be legitimate for European nations to restrict immigration. I do think it would be legitimate and I also think it would be a good idea.
"The fact that succeeding immigrant groups rewrote this act in 1965 does not change what the Founders wanted."
By the way, as a point of information I would note that the US started down the road to being non-White a long time before 1965. For example, in 1868 the percentage of white citizens in the United States was reduced dramatically by the stroke of a pen.
I realize that this is an uncomfortable fact for people who want to blame the Jews for the de-Europeanization of America, but a fact it is.
To Sabril:
Your hypocrisy and rationalizations and historical revisionisms are really mindboggling.
Not all, but I do think that European countries should gently encourage their Third World immigrants to leave.
Why not all?
Why only "Third World immigration"?
To Sabril:
Your hypocrisy and rationalizations and historical revisionisms are really mindboggling.
No, it's part of his strategy.
If you've followed his commentary, you would have seen that he has been trying to vigorously counter arguments suggesting that there has been Jewish participation in increasing immigration to the West.
Since he realizes that his counter-arguments may not be enough to convince people otherwise, he is now turning to alternative measures such as arguing that the European and European-derived nations never originally intended to prevent de-Europeanization.
"Your hypocrisy and rationalizations and historical revisionisms are really mindboggling."
Lol, the problem is rather your inability to read carefully.
"suggesting that there has been Jewish participation in increasing immigration to the West. "
Yet another strawman. Of course there has been Jewish participation. But most anti-Semites claim that Jews are the cause.
"arguing that the European and European-derived nations never originally intended to prevent de-Europeanization."
Another strawman. The question is how much of a priority it was (and is) to them. And even if it was not a priority, it was still a laudable goal.
My argument is descriptive not normative. i.e. I'm not making any judgment about whether Israel has a superior moral right to maintain immigration restriction compared to places like Norway.
Your description does strongly imply a value judgement. When you claim (falsely) that countries other than Israel were not intended to be the homelands for specific peoples, you are not only making an erroneous description, you are suggesting that these countries are violating their historical foundations in trying to be the home of a specific people now.
By the way, as a point of information I would note that the US started down the road to being non-White a long time before 1965.
As a point of information, let me point out that Israel has contained a large non-Jewish minority since its creation. Israel was non-Jewish for a long time before 2011, or 1980, or 1948.
all too many people can't understand the difference between arguments about how things are and arguments about how things should be.
When you and other "conservative Jews" argue that the US was explicitly created as the Anti-Nation, you are arguing for what you think should be and not for what historically was.
Anyhow, such ladders are complex pieces of engineering, and expensive, requiring training and instruction to use properly, and then there's the problem of waht to do once you've scaled one side
One man can easily handle a 40' extension ladder if it isn't too windy out. Two men can handle a 60' extension ladder.
It does take a bit of practice but we're not talking rocket science here.
And by "handle," I mean maneuver with a lot of precision. Slamming it up against a wall so you can climb over doesn't take a lot of precision.
But yeah, they aren't cheap. But neither are coyotes.
Sabril makes a good point above. The Israeli elite are aware that any type of multicultural immigration policy will break their country quickly.
How so? How would a 30% share of, say, Chinese, Hindus, Mestizos and Europeans "break" Israel, in a way it would not "break" America?
" How would a 30% share of, say, Chinese, Hindus, Mestizos and Europeans 'break' Israel, in a way it would not 'break' America?"
One problem is that if Israel opens its doors to Gentiles, it won't only get Mexicans, Chinese, etc. It will also get Arabs. Lots and lots of Arabs who dream of chasing out all the Jews.
To be sure, Israel could try to set things up to still keep out Arabs, but that would draw even more criticism than now and besides, it would go against the first point I made which is that from the very beginning, Israel's highest priority has been to be a Jewish state.
Now, it's true that the founders of the USA probably intended for it to be a European state. But it clearly wasn't their highest priority. Arguably it should have been, but rightly or wrongly it wasn't.
One problem is that if Israel opens its doors to Gentiles, it won't only get Mexicans, Chinese, etc. It will also get Arabs. Lots and lots of Arabs who dream of chasing out all the Jews.
It'll get whoever it decides to get.
To be sure, Israel could try to set things up to still keep out Arabs, but that would draw even more criticism than now
I wanted to know why it would "break" Israel. I didn't ask for a new excuse.
and besides, it would go against the first point I made which is that from the very beginning, Israel's highest priority has been to be a Jewish state.
I.e., it wouldn't break Israel in any germane way that immigration isn't already breaking America.
Crying about the Arabs can't help you guys on this one. The world's full of vibrant alternatives. Israel could defend itself against the Arab hordes just fine with a 30% Chinese population. Better, even. Think of all the cognitively elite toys they'd invent.
So keeping Israel "pure" and of the "master race" (you have no idea how much I enjoyed typing that) really has nothing to do with security.
Now, it's true that the founders of the USA probably intended for it to be a European state. But it clearly wasn't their highest priority. Arguably it should have been, but rightly or wrongly it wasn't.
How can it be Israel's highest priority to remain a Jewish state? Don't they have too many Arabs and guest-worker untermenschen for that to pass the smell test?
You know, how lots of people say diet and exercise are a priority, but they keep eating junk food and watching TV all day?
"I wanted to know why it would 'break' Israel."
If Israel admits Mexicans, Hindus, etc. (but not Arabs or Muslims) then it would not "break" Israel any more than it would "break" the US (in terms of the net effects of such migration without regard to fundamental demographic goals).
"How can it be Israel's highest priority to remain a Jewish state?"
Just read their declaration of independence.
"Don't they have too many Arabs and guest-worker untermenschen for that to pass the smell test?"
I would say "no." Guest workers don't get citizenship and must leave after 10 years (unless of course they convert to Judaism). And Israeli Arabs were either living there in 1948 or are descended from Arabs living there in 1948.
Post a Comment